(HC) Scroggins v. Smith ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY LEE SCROGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00519-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 2) 14 STEVE SMITH, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Geronimo Mejia (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is 19 Petitioner’s motion that the Court appoint counsel to represent him. (Doc. 2). In support of his 20 motion, Petitioner advances the following grounds: (1) he lacks financial resources to retain an 21 attorney; (2) he has no legal training; and (3) the legal issue brought in his petition is complex and 22 involves an unusual fact pattern. (Doc. 2 at 2-3). 23 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 24 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 25 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel 26 for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 27 the interest of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, ee IR OSI IID EINE II III IERIE IGG (UES DIE 1 | appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 2 || necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 3 | Cases in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where 4 | discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to 5 | facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is 6 || warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c).! 7 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 8 | or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 9 | acomplex legal issue and contains an unusual factual record, the Court notes that the types of 10 trial court evidentiary rulings and related Confrontation Clause issues implicated in this case are 11 | not unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown any exceptional 12 | circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. Petitioner’s proffered difficulties 13 | with his lack of education and legal training are shared with many other habeas petitioners. 14 | Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed counsel is 15 | necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process concerns. 16 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 17 | (Doc. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _May 17, 2024 | br Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Rules Governing $2254 cases in the United States Courts are appropriately applied to proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule 1(b).